Intravitreal Administration of Erythropoietin and Preservation of Retinal Ganglion Cells in an Experimental Rat Model of Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the potential neuroprotective effect of an intravitreal injection of erythropoietin (EPO) on retinal ganglion cell (RGC) preservation in an episcleral vessel cautery-induced rat model of glaucoma. METHODS: The animals were randomly assigned into an unoperated control group (n = 11) and three experimental groups: episcleral vessel cautery only (EVC: n = 4), episcleral vessel cautery with intravitreal normal saline injection (EVC-NS; n = 5), and episcleral vessel cautery with intravitreal EPO treatment (EVC-EPO; n = 9). The intravitreal injections were limited to 5 mul containing either normal saline alone or 200 ng of EPO in normal saline administered immediately after the cautery procedure. RGCs were labeled retrogradely by FluoroGold neuron tracer 5 to 7 days prior to the collection of eyes at day 21 and counted in whole flat-mounted retinas with fluorescence microscopy. RESULTS: Compared to the RGC counts in retinal specimens from unoperated control rats (12,619 +/- 310), the corresponding RGC counts were significantly decreased in both the EVC (9116 +/- 273; p < 0.005) and EVC-NS (9489 +/- 293; p < 0.005) groups but not significantly decreased in the EVC-EPO (11,212 +/- 414; p = 0.051) treated retinas. CONCLUSIONS: A single intravitreal 200 ng dose of EPO appears to have a protective effect on RGC viability in an in vivo rat model of glaucoma. Further experimental studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results and to optimize the appropriate dose and frequency of EPO delivery in animal models of glaucoma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".